On Friday, June 23, at 9:30 a.m., a federal judge in San Francisco will hear oral arguments on the U.S. government's motion to dismiss EFF's class-action lawsuit against AT&T. Today, the court issued an order stating, "In addition to all other matters pertinent to the hearing noticed for June 23, 2006, the parties should be prepared to address the following questions" -- read them beneath the fold (order to be uploaded shortly):

1. Regardless how the court decides the government?s motion to dismiss on state secret grounds, should the court grant an interlocutory appeal of that decision pursuant to 28 USC ?1292(b)?

2. If the court denies the government?s motion to dismiss on state secret grounds and grants an interlocutory appeal, should the court stay proceedings?

3. How can the court minimize the conflict between plaintiffs? right to litigate this case and the government?s duty to protect state secrets? See Ellsberg v Mitchell, 709 F2d 51, 57 (DC Cir 1983) (?[T]he [state secret] privilege may not be used to shield any material not strictly necessary to prevent injury to national security; and, whenever possible, sensitive information must be disentangled from nonsensitive information to allow for the release of the latter.?).

4. If the court does not dismiss this case, which of plaintiffs? claims is least likely to require discovery of classified evidence?

5. If a warrant is not required for the government via AT&T to intercept plaintiffs? communications, how can the Fourth Amendment?s reasonableness requirement be adjudicated without implicating state secrets?

6. How can confirming or denying the existence of the alleged surveillance program at issue here, or AT&T?s alleged participation in that program, constitute disclosure of a state secret when the program has been so widely reported in the public sphere?

7. If the litigation discloses that AT&T received a certification from the government, the existence of this certification would evince AT&T?s involvement in some kind of surveillance program.

a. Could the difference between a possibility that AT&T is involved (based on public reports) versus a near certainty that AT&T is involved (if it received a
certification) itself be a state secret?

b. In particular, consider a terrorist who would use the communications channels that are allegedly being monitored so long as he is not certain that they are
being monitored. If this litigation reveals that AT&T has received a certification and is involved in some kind of surveillance program, might the risk to national
security of disclosure of the certification be de minimis and not outweigh plaintiffs? due process rights?

8. Which of plaintiffs? claims could survive if AT&T received a certification from the government?

9. If the court denies the government?s motion to dismiss on state secret grounds, what are the parties? positions on the possible appointment pursuant to FRE 706 of an expert to advise the court on state secret assertions with respect to particular pieces of evidence?

10. If the court decides to appoint an FRE 706 expert, what are the criteria that the court should use in making that appointment?

11. If such an expert is appointed, what responsibilities should that expert have?

Related Updates

The full weight of U.S. policing has descended upon protesters across the country as people take to the streets to denounce the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and countless others who have been subjected to police violence. Along with riot shields, tear gas, and other crowd control...

Your phone is your life. It’s where you communicate, get your news, take pictures and videos of your loved ones, relax and play games, and find a significant other. It can track your health, give you directions, remind you of events, and much more. It’s an incredibly helpful tool, but...

EFF has joined a broad coalition of civil liberties, civil rights, and labor advocates to oppose A.B. 2261, which threatens to normalize the increased use of face surveillance of Californians where they live and work. Our allies include the ACLU of California, Oakland Privacy, the California Employment Lawyers Association, Service...

In the wake of nationwide protests against the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, we urge protestors to stay safe, both physically and digitally. Our Surveillance Self Defense (SSD) Guide on attending a protest offers practical tips on how to maintain your privacy and minimize your digital...

With states beginning to ease shelter-in-place restrictions, the conversation on COVID-19 has turned to questions of when and how we can return to work, take kids to school, or plan air travel.Several countries and U.S. states, including the UK, Italy, Chile, Germany, and California, have expressed interest in...

When it comes to surveillance of our online lives, Internet service providers (ISPs) are some of the worst offenders. Last year, the state of Maine passed a law targeted at the harms ISPs do to their customers when they use and sell their personal information. Now that law is...

COVID-19, and containment efforts that rely on personal data, are shining a spotlight on a longstanding problem: our nation’s lack of sufficient laws to protect data privacy. Two bills before Congress attempt to solve this problem as to COVID-19 data. One is a good start that needs improvements. The other...

In a landmark decision, the German Constitutional Court has ruled that mass surveillance of telecommunications outside of Germany conducted on foreign nationals is unconstitutional. Thanks to the chief legal counsel, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF), this a major victory for global civil liberties, but especially those that live and...